Comments on: Gibson’s movie

By: CAROL

CAROL — Mon, 01 Mar 2004 16:24:18 +0000

I am a Jew and saw the movie yesterday with a mixed group of gentiles who eagerly awaited my responses. I have yet to sift through what I saw/learned and don’t wish to enter into verbal communications at this time. However, was a scribe at the foot of the cross taking notes? By the time the story was written, it had passed through too many sources to be accurate. Kinda like playing the game of “TELEPHONE.” People have still to realize that PEACE and not WAR was and still is the bottom line.

By: paulpineo

paulpineo — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:29:14 +0000

Why are we surprised that non-messianic jews are offended by this movie? First of all they don’t even read the new testament, secondly they don’t believe in the one and only begotten son, so wouldn’t one expect them to be offended?

By: karen

karen — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 03:24:58 +0000

I don’t believe this will just be “a movie that is going to be watched by very, very few people….” This movie will be watched by a LOT of Christians, who (I pray) will remember as I do the words of our God concerning the nation of Israel “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Gen. 12:3) He is the same God who also told His people (Israel): “See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.” Isaiah 49:16 I marvel at a statement I read that the ADL was pressing for a post-script reminder to be added to the film which states “Jesus died for the sins of all men.” I can only reply “Amen!” to the ADL. Now if only the rest would get it. I hope Gibson added it. If not, he should have. Because that is what it is all about.

By: Glen Gabel

Glen Gabel — Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:21:00 +0000

Some of you guys are complete idiots. First “The Passion” WAS shown to members of the Anti-defamation league, you totally misquoted Gibson and his staff there. Secondly NO, parts of the film were not “based” on some nun’s vision..people try actually reading some of Gibson’s interviews on it – believe the Vatican was very wary of the film before and after seeing they loved it. And finally, I don’t understand why some Jewish special interest groups are up in arms over the film when quite obviously 90% of them haven’t even seen it yet. You’re all going on heresay and rumor…dont be stupid. See the film, give it a chance then make a comment. It isn’t even out yet. Besides how can you say Jews are painted in a “bad” light. Historically who lived in Jerusalem at that time? Caucasians? Africans? NO, Jews. So yes obviously some of the antagonistic people there were jews but guess what? So was Jesus! And almost all his disciples. SO please, please, please people don’t bash an important film like this because of your own petty misgivings, go into it with an open mind.

By: Mark Kim

Mark Kim — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 02:32:41 +0000

great discussion and all, but the biggest thing is, here is a man willing to step out and do what he believes what is right. Here is a man bold enough to proclaim to the world what he believes in even though society rejects him. Many of you speak of him as a bad person, a criminal. He’s a man just showing his faith. that’s all that it is in the end. my pastor already has seen this film, and he said when it was over, there was silince for a little then prayer and weeping. full grown men bawling and praying and praising. maybe to some people this movie is outcasted shouldnt be allowed, but to others its a sign of new life. This life is shown in the movie because Mel Gibson himself found it. He’s just a man showing his faith. If he was Jewish during the holocost times and spoke out against the Nazis people whould have considered him a hero for professing his faith, but that’s all he is doing right now. professing his faith

By: Nabakov

Nabakov — Fri, 08 Aug 2003 10:37:26 +0000

Great discussion. Can I draw people’s attention to George McDonald (“Flashman” and the screenplays for D. Lester’s muskateer films) Frazer’s book, “The Hollywood History of The World” where he provides many exmaples of how, for its many egregious fuckups, Hollywood generally did a much better and more accurate job of historical stories than is now realised. I use the words’”generally” and “did” with care.

By: Robert Schwartz

Robert Schwartz — Thu, 07 Aug 2003 22:42:29 +0000

Oh Dear! I was defending Gibson from Tim’s criticism of anachronism in his (Gibson’s) treatment of Edward II and now I am hoist by my own petard. What to say? Every dramatist from Euripidies on, who has used history as his plot source, has been criticized for distorting history. Each of them has defended himself with the shield of poetic license. It seems to me that poetic license can only get you so far. It is well within the the realm of poetic licence to have an actor, depicting character who was a open homosexual, use some of the cues used by homosexuals in contemporary society to communicate an important trait that brought him into conflict with another primary character. OTOH, puting a historical character in to a plot, that she could not possibly have been part of, is pushing the envelope. And yes the love interest is an important part of the drama. To say that Stone is a worse offender than Gibson is not a defense of Gibson. IMHO, Stone is much the better auteur. Wall Street is one of the great films of the recent era because Stone’s art in portraying Gordon Gekko far surpases his jejune politics. OTOH, Stone’s politics dragged him under in JFK and Nixon. Whether Stone’s sin in making those movies was worse than Gibson’s because of the more contemporary subject may depend on your viewpoint. Clearly, you don’t live in Scotland. And does anybody take Stone’s history seriously. I stopped listening to JFK assasination conspiracy theories when I quit smoking:-)

By: alistair

alistair — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:44:51 +0000

Robert Schwartz, didn’t you write that Edward II was openly homosexual according to the historical record? The only fact in “Braveheart” that you dispute was whether Isabella would have been old enough to mother a child by Wallace. It’s pretty clear from the record that this would have been impossible, and was an instance of “poetic license.” It was a very tangential aspect of the film, only mentioned in passing. So I think it’s unfair to condemn the entire film—or filmmaker—on this basis alone. Other historical films done by Hollywood have twisted facts far more egregiously than Braveheart. See most any movie by Oliver Stone. What Stone does is far more harmful, in my opinion, because he deals with much more recent history, such as JFK’s assassination or Nixon’s presidency. People who were involved with both administrations are still alive today. Nobody now really cares who fathered Edward III in the 14th century. But issues like who killed JFK still have powerful influence today.

By: Walter

Walter — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:28:28 +0000

Yes, but this is just poetic license. It’s pretty well conceded that Braveheart (or just about any Hollywood adaptation) gets the facts wrong, and on purpose.

By: Robert Schwartz

Robert Schwartz — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 03:51:26 +0000

Tim: “Gibson definitely introduced an element of anachronistically swishy-effeminate gestures into the representation of Edward II in ‘Braveheart’” Hollywood, baby, you got get the message through to the masses without subtitles. It is a fact that E II was a homosexual and a fact that he was notorious for showering favors on his male lovers. One historian says that at his wedding, the court was scandalized because he prefered the bed of his lover to that of his wife. How do you get that through to a modern audience? “Am I misremembering (it’s been a while since I saw the movie), or didn’t the film even go so far as to suggest/insinuate that it was actually Wallace who fathered the heir to the English throne (ie, Edward III)?” IA: I don’t remember either. Whatever, the the real Isabella was about 9 when the real Wallace lost his head. The real Isabella would be a great subject for a movie. Walter: “Re: Braveheart, you’ve gotta remember that Gibson only directed it. Some other dude, last name ‘Wallace’, wrote the screenplay. Gibson could’ve easily changed some things around, but I don’t think that the basic interpretation of Wallace or bedding Edward’s wife was his idea.” Yes, he did not write it, but the director is responsible for what goes on the screen. He may not know English History, but he was happy to cash the checks.

By: Walter

Walter — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 00:09:10 +0000

Re: Braveheart, you’ve gotta remember that Gibson only directed it. Some other dude, last name ‘Wallace’, wrote the screenplay. Gibson could’ve easily changed some things around, but I don’t think that the basic interpretation of Wallace or bedding Edward’s wife was his idea.

By: Invisible Adjunct

Invisible Adjunct — Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:53:32 +0000

“(not to mention making Wallace contrast as so uber-hetero that he gets to bed Edward’s wife as well as his lost love).” Am I misremembering (it’s been a while since I saw the movie), or didn’t the film even go so far as to suggest/insinuate that it was actually Wallace who fathered the heir to the English throne (ie, Edward III)?

By: alistair

alistair — Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:46:07 +0000

Good point. When Christians complain about certain movies or art exhibits they haven’t actually seen, they’re routinely mocked. There’s also a double standard with respect to Christian sensibilities. Irate Christians are told to relax and “get over it” when such films as “The Last Temptation of Christ” come along that they find insulting to their beliefs. The same applies to art exhibits like “Piss Christ.” I haven’t done a Nexus search, but I would wager a day’s pay that Frank Rich, who denounces Gibson’s film sight unseen, is guilty of all of the above. As for the negative criticism all being Gibson’s fault, it should be noted that it all started with a leaked early draft of the screenplay to a self-appointed committee of “experts.” And this committee has claimed the script is anti-Semitic without providing a single quote from this screenplay—not one line of dialogue or scene direction—to back their claim. Committee member Paula Fredriksen in her TNR article makes great hay out of Gibson’s citing of Sister Emmerich as a source of inspiration, but she fails to cite specific instances in the script itself where the anti-Semitic aspects of Emmerich’s writings are represented. Fredriksen read the script. If Emmerich’s description of the crucifix being constructed in the temple on the orders of the high priest occurs in the script, why not say so? A close reading of all the articles that have been written about this subject reveals that no specific evidence has ever been presented of the script’s (let alone the film’s) alleged anti-Semitism—only the vaguest sort of innuendo and inference. It’s a shame that the Times has signed on to this specious campaign to destroy a work of art before it can even see the light of day.

By: Timothy Burke

Timothy Burke — Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:06:14 +0000

Gibson definitely introduced an element of anachronistically swishy-effeminate gestures into the representation of Edward II in “Braveheart” (not to mention making Wallace contrast as so uber-hetero that he gets to bed Edward’s wife as well as his lost love). But then he also made Wallace out to be a modern nationalist-democrat, so you can’t object just on the basis of anachronism. On the main subject, I basically agree with those who think that the concerns being expressed over the film are premature and problematic. Why do we get on Bob Dole’s case for representing films that he never saw and then give people a free pass to hammer on Gibson based on sketchy (to say the least) knowledge of what his rather interesting-seeming film project actually is.?

By: micah

micah — Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:45:42 +0000

If there’s confusion about the content of this film, I’m willing to put the blame squarely on Gibson’s people. They’ve shown this movie to a lot of influential right-wing talking heads, presumably so that they can talk it up. So you have Matt Drudge telling Pat Buchanon that the movie is a “miracle” that left him in “total tears,” or this blogger href=”http://churchofthemasses.blogspot.com/2003_06_22_churchofthemasses_archive.html#105664179273691486” rel=”nofollow”>http://churchofthemasses.blogspot.com/2003_06_22_churchofthemasses_archive.html#105664179273691486, who says she’s seen the movie and thinks that “Every Christian needs to see this film at least once.” If Gibson is showing the movie to his friends (many of them, apparently, on the right) and then letting them loose to tell the world how great it is, then it shouldn’t be any surprise when the critics come calling. If he wanted criticism of the movie to be more accurate, then he should have shown the rough cut of the movie to critics, or perhaps selectively released the final script, or told his “friendly” audiences that the preliminary screening was for their personal benefit and not a marketing stunt.